The Tyranny of DEI

WSJ Tyranny of DEI

It is not benign, it is a cancer on our society.

68 thoughts on “The Tyranny of DEI

  1. The hypocrisy of DEI is it specifically excludes conservatives who account for half the nation but caters to mentally ill people trying to live fantasy at the expense of everyone else.


  2. RE: “It is not benign, it is a cancer on our society.”

    Yes. It is like the Salem Witch Trials meets the Great (Dutch) Tulip Mania.

    Maybe kids these days can figure it out. I’d say the solution starts with seeing that many intellectual products of the Englighment have turned out to be fool’s gold. It might help them to contemplate that fool’s gold exists because there is real gold.


  3. Egregious example make political hay. I have spoken out against the hecklers’ veto many times.

    Universities have always been nesting grounds for social unrest, and wii probably continue to be so.

    Decades ago cultural exclusion was the norm. Depending upon who you were, being non-White, non-Christian, or even the wrong kind of Christian, or gay was a huge detriment to success in the American society. Even deadly.

    The pendulum has swung, and conservative don’t like it.

    No earth shaking news. But outrage buys votes.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “The pendulum has swung, and conservative don’t like it.”

      Is that it? Is that all there is to it? Is it not possible that DEI is a malignant force in society today?

      Watching the video of the shoutdown at Stanford Law School, the thing that most impressed me was the absence of intellectual maturity on the part of the hecklers, especially the dean for DEI, Terien Steinbach. Surely this in itself is a problem, and a worrisome one.

      WSJ’s writer says, “The DEI movement may have started with good intentions, but across government, education and American business its functionaries have too often become ideological enforcers.”

      I think there is more to this issue than “political hay.”


      1. “ “Our youth love luxury. They have bad manners and despise authority. They show disrespect for their elders and love to chatter instead of exercise. Young people are now tyrants, not the servants of their household. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up food and terrorize their teachers.”

        Famous ancient philosopher.

        DEI, embraced by young, enforced by slightly older folks or vote seekers. Rejected by conservatives and the older demographic.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. You have a point.

            “… he was presenting his own summary of the complaints directed against young people in ancient times.”

            So yes the quote attribution belongs to Freeman. But the original lament was not his.

            See, I have always said I learn something new every day.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. IMO, MAGA is the malignant force.

        DEI is part of a movement to right some wrongs that have been festering for decades, if not centuries.

        In our nation, extreme positions are eventually tempered by compromise if there is willing dialogue.

        Unfortunately that willing dialogue, which created our Constitution BTW, has been pushed aside by the no compromise invention of the Tea Party and its founder, Gingrich. It was his selling point that compromise was evil.

        We have upwards of 4000 colleges in the US. If this DEI issue is major, it would have 4000 more examples of bad behavior regarding unwelcome speech.

        We don’t.

        Political hay stands, IMO

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “IMO, MAGA is the malignant force.”

          Do you think that pushing an opinion like that can lead to the kinds of compromise you appear to value?


          1. “ Is it not possible that DEI is a malignant force in society today?”

            You push yours, and I’ll push mine.

            So far DEI has not attacked Congress with bear spray, tasers, clubs and climbing gear.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “Do you think that pushing an opinion like that can lead to the kinds of compromise you appear to value?”

            Your demonization of “others” is much worse and more lethal.

            Liked by 1 person

      3. “ I think there is more to this issue than “political hay.”

        No it is part of the modern version of God, guns and gays issues the right drags out every election cycle.

        One big plus is that DEI certainly generates discussion. Discussion and debate are much preferred than violence.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. You have become so partisan that you can no longer see that some things transcend politics.

      DEI allows the shallow and emotional to overcome fact and reason. The importance of an academic’s work is judged not by its quality but by the race and gender(s) of the writer.

      It is an assault on reason and merit.


      1. Did you read my comment or are you just slipping in some personal attacks.

        We just discussed this topic a few days back. Legacy admissions, connections in business, effective modern red lining…these are real and continuing.

        Addressing these issues is what DEI is trying to accomplish. Level the playing field a bit.

        Now I said that the American way is to demand the moon, but with debate, settle for some improvements.

        We have never had a meritocracy other than through lip service and myth laced with examples of the rare.

        That was my point. You are making it hyper partisan by refusing to acknowledge that there is merit to DEI, just not necessarily all or nothing.

        So please think before accusing. It is good for both the mind and the heart.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. I can see how some may feel that DEI is detrimental. Unions went through the same thing. They started as workplace fairness and safety and then got a little too big for their britches.

    We live in a diverse nation. It is why we are a pretty cool place to live and a lot of people want to come here. THose who want to shut down the idea of our institutions reflecting that diversity is idiotic, IMO. But the proponents of DEI CAN go too far.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I said it could go to far. What more do you want? For me to say that the idea of a diverse country should NOT be reflected in its institutions? Not gonna happen.

        The Christian, white, male, straight hegemony that has ruled this country since its founding NEEDS to be kicked out and those with the MERIT, regardless of everything else should be given the opportunity. You seem to want to rule people out BECAUSE of their differences. I believe that opportunity should be color/gender/sexual orientation/religious blind.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. For crying out loud, Don. I agree that some have screwed the pooch on the diversity thing. The protesters at Stanford were terrible. But the Judge was also terrible when he asked for which case the challenger was referring to, claimed he wasn’t on that panel, and then got real mean when he was informed, by the protester, that he was a signatory to the decision.

            But you keep doing anecdotes instead of acknowledging what I said to you about it.

            Take your anecdotes and rehash them as many times as you feel need to. But if you don’t address what has been said, I am not going to be able to conversate with you on this further.

            Unless of course you are claiming Mr. Roberts’ superiority mantel on this topic.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “The rest of the world sees us as a clown show.”

            That is YOUR opinion, based on wishful thinking. The clow show you are lamenting started in 2017, when a certain reality TV clown took the Oval Office. Once again, a Democrat has to clean up after an elephant. But I digress.

            So a typo on Twitter is reason enough for you to condemn what she said? If we did that here, we would have to stop talking. We usually lightly jab at each other on typos. You are blaming a black woman for doing what we all have done. Sexist, racist, both? Asking for a friend.

            I was involved in diversity efforts while on active duty. Primarily being an integral part of the command training team in preparation of adding female sailors to the crew of 350. It was well received in the enlisted ranks and the transition and follow on deployment had zero issues. I also had the privilege to work with sailors, male and female, Black, white, Filipino and several others in preparing them for their next steps. It was interesting to see, in hindsight, the White privilege on display, when the White sailors felt they didn’t need to listen to the wise old chief. While the Black and female (and others) sailors, worked HARD to get ahead.

            So please explain why the idea of “diversity” is such a bad thing? Are we not a diverse nation made up of several different, races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, etc? Do we denigrate the worth of ALL in the name of White hegemony? And giving a leg up to worthy folks who are not White, Christian, straight, males, maligned for who they are for so long that opportunities were denied to them, is bad?

            My house has lived by a certain motto. A hand up until it becomes a handout. Consider that.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Not a bad motto.

            When you worked on integrating women into ship’s crews, did the advocates of bringing them on board create a doctrine of denigrating male sailors back 400 years? Were male sailor’s input on possible problems silenced simply because they were male? Was a language created simply for the purpose of dismissing the contributions of male sailors? Was valuable command staff time devoted to the renaming of ships to expunge the memory of heroes who’s views on female sailors were not current?

            Were the Chief’s with decades to experience and wisdom pushed out to make way for women who had the training but not the time?

            Today’s DEI is a different animal than the legitimate efforts to correct past wrongs.

            It is toxic, Marxist and vengeful. It’s not about fair access, it’s about destroying what got us here.


          4. Your delusions of what you THINK is happening based on a small sample of anecdotes is horsehit. Using words and phrases such as “marxism” and Affirmative Action as reasons to denigrate the idea of a fair shake to all is a hidden attempt to denigrate the idea of what this nation is capable of being when ALL are given the opportunities and not shuffled to the back of the line because they aren’t Christian, White, straight, males.

            I would say that your were a delusional pessimist, but that would be an insult to pessimists everywhere.`

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Didn’t get out of any either. The Taliban and Trump cut a deal, excepting the Afghan government, then shoved the mess to the next administration.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. “… it’s about destroying what got us here.”

            And that being…?

            As far as women go, ignoring half your population and relegating them to “women’s work” is Taliban, Afghan style. Which is why they don’t win too many Nobel Prizes the sciences.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Having babies is the only one that seems to matter. Anything else, they should not be given the opportunity to prove they are capable.

            1950 called. They don’t want you back. 1850 telegraphed. They said you are welcome there. 😇

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Caudacity is a slang term since about 2015.

            Kinda like “White uppity-ness”, but shorter.

            It wasn’t long ago that even with all things being equal, Blacks and women were still excluded from many occupations or degree programs. Efforts and discussions to reach meritocracy certainly can’t ignore 1/2 our population based in sex, nor 20% based on minority status. Not only did those who did break the sex and color barriers have to be far superior and incredibly driven to overcome resistance, but the had to endure charges of racial or sexual preference, whether true or not.

            That being said, debate needs to continue rather than bitterness and backlash fed by right wing charges and fears of “replacement”, or “Marxism”. Of course the politics of fear, resentment and outrage made millionaires on cable, so money talks and reason walks.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Funny, I don’t recall saying that.

            Cite? Or just trying to put words in my writing to fit your agenda.

            Ask for a friend.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “Odd they didn’t start any wars during that period.”

            Nothing odd about it. An all-out Ukraine invasion before the election would have hurt the chances of their puppet to stay in the Oval Office.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “Their puppet is in the Oval office”

            President Biden is not Putin’s puppet. President Biden is Putin’s nemesis. Try to keep up.

            Humor – if it is going to work – needs at least a tiny element of truth behind it. This little joke, like most “conservative” attempts at humor, is the opposite of funny.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. “Zelensky’s puppet, not Putin’s”

            Which is it – Is America pulling the strings to encroach on poor little Russia or is Zelensky the puppet master?

            Oh, I know! Zelensky has the evidence you have been looking for on the “corrupt Biden crime family” and THAT is the reason we are resisting Russia’s rightful annexation of Ukraine.

            Whatever. Still not funny and a very unserious contribution to any discussion.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “And yet the Biden crime family was on their payroll, and has the evidence.”

            Are you mentally ill? You sure sound like it. Non-stop babbling of nonsense. On just about every subject. All that is missing is the drool but, of course, we can’t see that. Is your keyboard still functional?


      2. Interesting.

        Do you have any evidence that unqualified pilots are flying planes because of DEI? Or medical students ignorant in pre-med are surpassing former valedictorians for med school admissions?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I’m sure he may find one or two. THey are always out there. But that one or two is ALWAYS an indicator that some insipid force is at play to take away from the White man. Such a downtrodden group we are.😱😇

          Liked by 1 person

          1. So, the issue of putting unqualified pilots in the cockpit is about the pilots and not the passengers?

            Typical Democrat thinking. if a less qualified pilot gets flustered by a runway incursion on final and doesn’t recover like a ‘Sully’ do only the white male passengers get killed?


        2. Here is an opinion piece by an experienced pilot. Note the cut in hours of experience,

          There is not substitute for time in the cockpit. When I got my license, I had many instructors. Most were building time toward their Air Transport Rating, which then was 2000 hours minimum. now it’s 1000. There is a world of difference between a technically proficient 200 hour pilot like me and a 2000 hour aviator. It shows in the level of comfort with flying. My most experienced instructor was my checkride pilot, (incidentally a woman) who had absolute mastery of the aircraft, She could demonstrate not just how to do things right, but how to fuck up and get out of it.

          If you want to get a good picture of DEI in aviation, ask pilots. BTW, the current nominee for FAA chief is not a pilot. Infact, Biden never put a pilot in charge of the FAA.

          If you think not flying is going to save you


          1. “ Unless otherwise exempt, you must have 1,500 hours before applying for an ATP certificate, including 500 hours of cross-country time, 100 hours of night time, 50 hours in the class of airplane for the rating, 75 hours of instrument time, and 250 hours of time as pilot in command.

            Restricted ATP

            If you flew in the military or through a collegiate flight program, the minimum number of hours required for the certificate may be less. In these cases you can obtain a restricted ATP and still be eligible to fly for an airline or as a charter captain. Military pilots can receive a restricted ATP with 750 hours of experience, someone who attends a four-year aviation college can get the restricted ATP at 1,000 hours, while a two-year aviation college grad can do it at 1,250 hours.”


            That is 1500 hours for the certificate. Does that make you a pilot on United, or co-pilot getting more hours?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Really?

            White males first?

            1500 hours is 1500 hours. Does it bother you that a woman or a minority had those hours also.

            There is a massive pilot shortage. Airlines are scrambling for pilots. Yet it still takes 1500 hours to apply for a job.

            What’s the problem?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “Here is an opinion piece by an experienced pilot. Note the cut in hours of experience”

            You need to read a lot more carefully. Your narrative of DEI endangering the flying public is complete BULLSHIT. The anti-vax and anti-government nonsense AND the involvement of Tucker Carlson should have alerted you to “trust but verify.”

            The Air Transport Pilot rating requires 1,500 hours, not 1,000. And that 1,500 hours requirement is an INCREASE over the previous standard (250 hours) that was implemented in 2013 following a regional jet tragedy.

            There is indeed pressure to lower the 1,500 hours requirements but that pressure has NOTHING to do with DEI objectives and everything to do with the serious pilot shortage that regional carriers are facing.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. My guess is a typo. 1250 was the probable minimum.

            No question it is important to have a lot of experience. The facts are that flying those commercial liners is more automated than a joystick between the legs.

            Sure, a Sully in every cockpit is nice, but we would be down to 100 planes for the US (exaggeration).

            The air travel mess we have now is airline driven, IMO. The feds gave billions to keep them above water. But when travel picked up again, thousands of crews said screw this. Passengers were spoiled, rotten assholes punching attendants. pilots were short handed, everybody wanted everything all at once. (Like the movie).

            So now we need not just pilots, but all matter of service personnel in the air transportation business. Plus we are short handed on Air Traffic Controllers to boot. That is critical infrastructure service.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “My guess is a typo. 1250 was the probable minimum.”

            There is no typo involved. Until 2013 the minimum hours for an ATP license was 250 – the same as for a commercial license. Other requirements were more stringent such as medical standards and course work. In 2013 Congress implemented the 1,500 hour minimum standard we have today.

            Dr. Tabor is making a bullshit point (air travel is made dangerous by DEI requirements) with bullshit evidence that he is simply making up without regard to the easily accessible facts.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “Yeah, those planes are very automated, until a circuit breaker pops on short final, then you better be able to fly the plane.”

            Sure, if the plane allows non-electical control. Older planes do. The most modern ones do not. That is why it makes sense for the government to have increased the bare minimums for pilots to 1,500 hours over industry objections who see it as a problem in hiring enough pilots.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “It was 2000 hours when I was training, but I doubt it ever got down to 250. It takes more than that just to get Commercial.”

            No it wasn’t 2,000 hours. You just made that up rather than admit you were in error.


            Doubt all you want, but it WAS 250 hours until Congress required that it be increased to 1,500 in 2013. And it does not take more than 250 to get a commercial license – 250 is the requirement and has been for decades.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. My flight instructor told me he was working toward his 2000 hours to apply for his ATP, and that was in 1995, that’s why he was working as an instructor, he had way more than 1000 at the time.


          9. “My flight instructor told me he was working toward his 2000 hours to apply for his ATP, and that was in 1995, that’s why he was working as an instructor, he had way more than 1000 at the time.”

            And yet, the requirement was 250 hours. Look it up.

            The bottom line your hair-on-fire bullshit about DEI causing the standards for an ATP ticket to be lowered is the opposite of the truth.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Possibly. I’m quite sure that was what my flight instructor said he was working toward but it could be it was an insurance requirement for the airlines.


          11. “Possibly?”

            What a mensch!

            You start with the nonsense story that flight safety has been compromised because hours standards have been drastically cut so that unqualified people can be pilots. Now your nonsense is found to be the opposite of the truth – hours standards have not been cut AT ALL and, in fact, hours standards were greatly increased from those fabulous good old days of your imagination when only real airmen qualified. So now, you start all this shucking and jiving about something you were told 28 years ago as your excuse for spreading these falsehoods.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s